Regular bail granted considering prolonged custody, no criminal antecedents, filed chargesheet, and delayed trial.

On 27 June 2026, acting on secret information, Police Station Saraipali seized 130 bulk litres of country-made liquor allegedly from the possession of Nitesh Bharti.

Crime No. 215/2026 was registered against him under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, and he was arrested on the same date.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he had been falsely implicated, that the seizure memo was fabricated, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that a large quantity of liquor had been seized from his possession.

Whether the applicant, arrested for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified grant of bail despite the alleged seizure of 130 bulk litres of liquor.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The prosecution alleged an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act concerning the unlawful possession or transportation of a substantial quantity of liquor.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the period of custody, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

No precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged the State’s objection based on the alleged recovery of 130 bulk litres of liquor but assessed the applicant’s entitlement to bail on the overall circumstances of the case.

It found that the applicant had remained in custody since 27 June 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Since the trial was likely to take some time, continued detention was not considered necessary at that stage.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for release on bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in case of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for information and compliance.